click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
CSPAN 12
CSPAN2 10
CNNW 2
LANGUAGE
English 26
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26
the policy of the united states since 9/11, including the bush administration, and the obama administration, for terror suspects apprehended within the united states to be treated in the federal system. there are two brief exceptions to that under the bush administration, even though two exceptions were treated in the civilian system. >> let me jump in. because senator graham was saying on fox just last night, or today, i'm fine with him getting tried in federal court. this is just about the initial designation. >> right. it's very difficult to actually designate somebody under the laws of war as an enemy combatant and not give them the rights and then try to drop them into the civilian system. you set yourself up when you do that. >> no -- >> let m point, jay. you set yourself up for all kinds of extensive challenges. there isn't a problem here. what you have i think is an enormous amount of public support right now for the job that law enforcement has done. and for senators who are not immediately involved in this thing, and many whom aren't even lawyers or been inside a court of law for
between the obama administration and some of the republican -- sorry about this and what that means is the obama administration has said the criminal justice system can make this work, the criminal can handle national security risks like this person, terrorists have been prosecuted, moussaoui. this administration is committed to using the american courts there are some critics, like senator mccain, like senator graham, who say that's too big a risk, that we have too many protection, we have too many abilities on the part of these defendants not to answer questions that put all of us at risk but i don't think there's any chance the obama administration is going to change its mind and use something other than the criminal justice system for this case. >> because a lot of people are raising questions, they had apparently some explosive devices, some weapons, rifles, hand grenades, stuff that's pretty expensive. where did they get this material? where did the money come from that helped them purchase this material? that's why some of these republican senators, lawmakers, are asking for
to vote against obama cared cared we need to break the obama administration. senator mcconnell for senate majority leader from the republicans announcing in 2010 that his highest priority, the senate majority leader was making barack obama the one-term president. if we had a coalition presidency were each party would elect a partner it wouldn't stand to gain as much clinical opposition. no matter what they did it was still share the white house with the other party so then it would be much freer to judge legislative proposals on their merits. so to put it another way, it's not surprising when you have a winner-take-all election for presidency whose power has grown to a level of the presidency you shouldn't be surprised that we have high levels of partisan conflict. indeed if you go back the increase in partisan conflict, to go back to the 50s and 60's there is much more of a cross party lines. if you look at partisan conflict graph it has risen since the 40s in the 50s grassley to levels we have today. presidential powers have increased at the same time so it's not surprising. so as they
with the cutbacks that we see, and unfortunately we see it also under the obama administration. we have something like 2200 osha inspectors for the entire country. if you were going to inspect every plant it would take 129 years for each plant to be inspected. that's not acceptable. >> john: is that the reason why they got away with it? i appreciate this is the defining argument of our times. are you going to have government oversight or are you going to allow the free market to take care of themselves. why do you think they were able to get away from inspections for so long. >> when we cover the facts on the ground, and we give names and faces to stories like this. this is not just an abstract story of policy, what we have to do in the media is show that when you have deregulation we're talking about the taking of lives, and that matters. and we need a media now that covers this in a regular basis the people of west, texas, are devastated. i don't see that changing unless--and it's not just republican or democrat thing. you have governor perry, a well- well-known republican governor who ran for
of legalization and the obama administration's response to substance abuse. gil kerlikowske was the featured speaker at the national press club. this is 50 minutes. >> well, good afternoon, everybody. it's a great pleasure and honor to be with all of you. first, let me thank so many people for being here today. and thank you for that wonderful introduction and the information, and i'm so glad you had a chance to spend some time with general dean who's somebody i'm going to talk about a lot in a few minutes along with a couple other people up here, also, that i've been so impressed with. the drug policy issue, the drug policy problems are really complex, and they're really difficult, and that's why i'm so appreciative of this forum to be able to talk a little bit more at length about it and then, certainly, to answer the questions. let me also mention the fact that donna ledger from the "usa today" is a person that has written extensively, also, about the drug problems in this country. and i know, as was mentioned in the introduction earlier, she is in boston right now with so many other jour
brings me here today is i have been informed that the obama administration has indicated this suspect in boston will not be treated as an enemy combatants. i strongly disagree with the obama administration's decision to roll out and in the combat the status for the suspect at this time. i believe such a decision is premature. it is impossible for us to gather the evidence in just a few days to determine whether or not this individual should be held for questioning under the law of war. the decision by the administration to try this individual in federal court is a sound decision. it is the right decision. military commission trials are not available in cases like this. i wrote the 2009 military commission act. i have been the judge advocate for over 30 years, along with the help of many colleagues. we created a system for foreign terrorists. we purposely excluded american citizens. i have all the confidence in the world in article 3 courts at the federal level. they do a terrific job. i have confidence in our military commissions system. the decision by the administration not to proce
and your bravery. what brings me here today is i have been informed that the obama administration has indicated this suspect in boston will not be treated as an enemy combatant. i strongly disagree with the obama administration's decision to rule out the combatant status for the suspect at this time. i believe such a decision is premature. it is impossible for us to gather the evidence in just a few days to determine whether or not this individual should be held for questioning under the law of war. the decision by the administration to try this individual in federal court is a sound decision. it is the right decision. military commission trials are not available in cases like this. i wrote the 2009 military commission act. i have been a judge advocate for over 30 years, along with the help of many colleagues. we created a system for foreign terrorists. we purposely excluded american citizens. i have all the confidence in the world in article 3 courts at the federal level. they do a terrific job. i have confidence in our military commissions system. the decision by the administration
their rights being read, then law enforcement may be able to do so. and when the obama administration announced it was going to use the public safety exception we said, well, you might be able to do that but recognize that it is limited and narrow. and, so now, i think that might have been invobed. we don't know. that is one of the things that we don't actually currently know now. how this has proceeded. and i think what's important here is not the defendant has counsel and has gone before a judge and so we look to the system to work, which means we expect prosecutors to proceed fairly and prove their case and defense lawyers to zealously perform their duty and we'll look to see what facts they find and what arguments they make going forward. >> host: cliff may, how different is the public safety exception that can be invoked in that first phase after a detention of a suspect? how is that different than looking at military or enemy combatant status? >> guest: the main difference would be as hina has correctly said the public safety exception is very narrow and limited in time. it is not exactly
is available to answer those questions. on the issue of the obama administration, during the 2008 campaign, president obama criticized the bush administration's treatment of detainees. candidate obama promised to close guantÁnamo and to reject torture without exception or equivocation to the also criticized previous administration for executive secrecy, including repeated invocation of the state secret privilege to get civil lawsuits thrown out of course, and he promised to lead a new era of openness. the administration has fulfilled some of those promises, and inconspicuously failed to fulfill others. in some cases because congress has lost them but in other places -- block them. as mentioned earlier, i level of secrecy surrounding the rendition and torture of detainees cannot continue to be justified on the basis of national security. the authorized enhanced techniques have been publicly disclosed, and the cia has approved its former employees publication of detailed accounts of individuals and interrogation. ongoing classification of gerald document these practices serves only to conce
? >> fundamental question, is this an international terrorism investigation, and did the obama administration know something about these two men back as far back as 2011. what we now know is that the fbi at the request of another country, no one is saying it's russia, at the request of another country looked into the activities of the older brother. there was concern that another country expressed about him. the fbi issuing a statement last night about all of that, and saying in part, and let me read it, "the request stated it was based on information that he, the older brother, was a follower of radical islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010, as he prepared to leave the united states for travel to the country's region to join unspecified underground groups." we don't know that this request to look into him came from russia, but now russian president vladimir putin today saying he wants some cooperation obviously with u.s. investigators. the u.s. intelligence community, the fbi, the cia now going back through everything they have, trying to see if there were, i
forces? we are giving them, most recently, the obama' administration they would give them 120 $3 million. the opposition clearly that they wanted far more than that. yet we are giving them armor and stuff like that. how can we defeat them when we are supplying them? at the same time, we have some issues like benghazi and the helicopter that had the hard crash landing in south korea this week and nobody has covered that at all. west, texas connected to the bombing in boston? and how much fertilizer was taken away before the explosion occurred? is anybody have any control over that? you may come i just don't see how we can defeat al qaeda and terrorism, homegrown or foreign- born, if we continue to put with free welfare without giving them any drug test or saying you have 30 days to 90 days to get off of welfare and get a job. we just need to bring back our moral values and ethics and start holding our politicians to to make them stand up there and do what they said they do, and not get away with fast and furious. host of issues,, some directly related and some not. yes: it is not uncommon
. on the issue of the obama administration, during the 2008 campaign, president obama criticized the bush administration's treatment of detainees. candidate obama promised to close guantanamo and to reject torture without exception or equivocation. he also criticized the previous administration for executive secrecy, included repeated invocation of the state's secret privilege to get civil lawsuits thrown out of court and the promise to lead a new era of openness. the administration has fulfilled some of those promises, and conspicuously failed to fulfill others. in some cases because congress has blocked them, but in other cases for reasons of their own. as asa mentioned earlier, high- level secrecy surrounding the rendition and torture of detainees since september 11 cannot continue to be justified on the basis of national security. the authorized enhanced techniques have been publicly disclosed and the c.i.a. has approved its former employee's publication of detailed accounts of individual interrogation. ongoing classification of material documenting these practices serves only to conc
is available to answer those questions. on the issue of the obama administration. candidate obama promised to close guantanamo and reject torture without exception or eequivocation. he also criticized previous administrations for executive seek recessy, including repeated invocation of the state's secret privilege to get civil lawsuits thrown out of court and he promised to lead a new era of openness. the administration has full fit filled some of those promises and conspicuously failed to fulfill others. in some cases because congress has blocked them, but in other cases for reasons of their own. as asa mentioned, the secrecy around torture of detainees cannot be justified to be continued to keep secret. the c.i.a. has approved its former employees publication of detailed accounts of individual interrogation. ongoing classification of this only makes its rep -- repetition more likely. as far as redaxes needed to honor specific -- as far as redactions needed to on more -- honor specific agreements, it has been determined to be made as available as possible. in addition to prohibiting all a
as secretary of state. i applaud the obama administration for ambitious negotiations on the important trade agreements you talked about -- the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, and the agreement with trading partners in asia. these negotiations hold a promise of boosting the u.s. economy with increased access to our largest markets, and stronger investments that would lead to more jobs. the economic potential is critical at a time when one in five jobs in our country are trade dependent. that trade is about more than tariffs. toope, we know, is critical help the united states with issues that cut across the foreign-policy perspective. asia is also key to several of our economic security interests, as you highlighted in your recent trip. it is critical we deepen economic ties to the ee you and but cannot lose sight of other critical missions, like turkey and russia. tackling some of our toughest geopolitical challenges will require a closer connection, i believe, to these nations. i praise you on your recent trip to turkey, where you have gotten turkey closer to resolving issue
confirmation, so i would think that the obama administration would be thanking the senate for its work to make it easier for any president to get confirmations, and in any event when we're talking about cabinet members, president obama is being better treated than the last three presidents. we are talking about circuit judges. he is better treated than george w. bush. when we're talking about district judges, he is treated a little worse in his first term than george w. bush, but we changed the rules to speed up district judges and the score in the second term, as i have said twice now, obama 13, bush 1, obama way ahead. i like to see confirmations move ahead. i hope i don't hear this much more when the record shows that in fact it's a manufactured crisis. i thank the president and i yield the the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the torres nomination. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the question is on the watson nomination. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call
within these agencies, not a congress. under the obama administration, immigration agents can no longer arrest those who violate.s depression agents cannot arrest an individual for entering the united states illegally. we can arrest and individual who illegally overstays a visa. immigration agents are prohibited from enforcing law regarding fraudulent documents theft.ntifty agents are urged to apply the dream to adults inmates in jails and releasing adults back into the communities, criminals who have committed felonies, assault and our officers are and who prey on children. at the same time, ice officers are punished that trend by dhs and ice leadership, with a loss of their jobs, simply because they attempt to off enforce the law. and provide for public safety. since the gang of eight has chosen to ignore enforcement officei ha uld ke to ask them publicly. dick rubio, chuck schumer, durbin, john mccain, pat leahy, lindsay graham, robert menendez, jeff flake, michael beck, as united states senators, representatives of the people, where have you been for the last four years? what have y
policies welcome back the agencies, not the united states congress. under the obama administration immigration ajonetses can no longer arrest those who violate the law. we'tt anndid who illegally overstays a visa. immigration agents are prohibited from enforcing laws regarding fraudulent documents by illegal aliens. agents are forced to apply the dream act to adult inmates in jails releasing criminals back into the nation. criminals who have committed felonies, who have assaulted our officers and who pray on children. -- prey on children. i.c.e. officers are threatened with the loss of their job simply because they attempt to enforce the immigration laws and provide for public safety. since the gang of eight has chosen to ignore law enforcement officers, i have a question i have that i would like to ask them publicly. dick rubio, chuck schumer, durbin, john mccain, lindsay raham, jeff flake, michael bennett, as united states senators the representatives of the people, where have you been for the last four years? what have you done to prevent political appointeings at d.h.s. from ig
and squander the enormous sacrifice of american lives. in iraq, the obama administration's decision to withdraw u.s. troops in 2011 has resulted in the research of al qaeda, increasing the violence and growing caribbean influence. the picture of iraq looks increasingly violent. obamahanistan, president is making the same mistakes based on arbitrary time lines and without a finding the underlining the objectives strategy and mission. in my office last week, we discussed the need to have capability to support the afghan security forces and counter- terrorism efforts. when making decisions about our mission, the president should listen more to the professional military commanders on the front lines and less to the political advisers in the west wing. this committee was told he recommends possibly 20,000 troops remain in afghanistan after 2014. that would be about 13,600 u.s. troops, about half that many international forces. our commander tells us the mission should be to continue counter-terrorism efforts and train and it finds afghan security forces. for those missions across the whole afghanist
truman through ted kennedy right through the obama administration. it ensured if you had a pre-existing condition you could not be denied coverage. it ensured that every child in america had health coverage. it ensured if you became sick, that you could not become bankrupt. 2/3 of all bankruptcies in the united states were because of illness. so i was very proud of that vote. and i think that it is something modeled upon the massachusetts law, and i voted for obamacare. i believe that it's important. i believe it goes right to fundamental values in our state and in our contry. -- our country. i believe it is a right and not privilege to have access to health care. i voted yes on obamacare. steve voted no. >> mr. lynch, 90 seconds. >> sure. that's one. let me just address that, that's probably not our biggest difference. the biggest difference between ed and i are really if you look at our records, and i go back, ed is a policy guy, and i'm a people guy. that's why i was explaining before that on all these fights with the bank bailout, ed was with the banks and i was with the pe
reach. a third area of focuses is school safety. unfortunately, the obama administration in the past several years reduced funding for school safety by over $300 million. next to me are detailed the security our cools stkpwrapbts were cut $110 million in 2012. school safety initiative was cut $53 million in 2011. and the safe and drug-free schools grants were cut $184 million in 2010. this substitute restores funding for school safety. if the effort is to protect our kids -- and i know all 100 senators want to do everything we can to protect our kids. one of the most direct ways is to make sure there are resources on the ground protecting our kids. and so this bill would provide $3400 million in funding -- $300 million in funding, 30 million a year for ten years, to do exactly that, to provide funding for the secure our schools grants. a fourth area is improving the existing background checks as it concerns mental illness. if you look for a common theme among these mass murderers that we have seen recent years, one of the most disturbing things is we've seen person after person with
these agencies, not the united states congress. under the obama administration, immigration agents can no longer arrest those who violate u.s. immigration law. immigration agents cannot arrest an individual for entering the u.s. illegally. we cannot arrest someone who over stays a visa. immigration agents are prohibited from enforcing laws regarding fraudulent documents and a dandy that by illegal aliens. agents are forced to apply the dream act, not to children in schools, but to adult inmates in jails. mmiething criminals back in nation, criminals who have insulted our officers, and who prey on children. at the same time, i.c.e. officers are punished and threatened by dhs and i.c.e. leadership, threatened with the loss of their jobs simply because they attempt to enforce the nation's immigration laws and provide for public safety. chosen togang 8 has ignore law enforcement officers, have a question i would like to ask them publicly. schumer, dickhuck durbin, john mccain, patrick leahy, lindsey graham, roark menendez, jeff blake, michael bennett's cut as united states senators, the representati
obama's administration officials surprised in recent weeks with an amended approach to syria. we don't want an outright rebel military victory right now because in the words of one senior official quote the good guys may not come out on top. >> well, if that depends on your definition of good guys. certainly the jihadist the sunni dominated groups, the fighting groups and the opposition most notable on its way to terms of size have recently pledged allegiance to al qaeda. that is a great concern. they are present in 13 of the 14 provinces in iran and are starting to establish municipal services providing humanitarian aid, food, hospitals and sharia law. >> do you think all this might've been avoided if we hadn't sat by and watched it happen? i thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator mccain. senator reid. >> thank you very much . chrman and thank you gentlemen for not only her testimony but your service. the issue at front and center is sequestration and i just have a more procedural question. first of all as i understand it your appropriation is part of the defense of her patien
. this brings the numbers of alaska to the number of originally planned during the bush administration, i believe, later we deuced by president obama. i have a question to you about this. was the russian government consulted or informed that the united states was considering this decision before the decision was made, and if so, when did that occur? >> the answer is not to my knowledge. it was not russian government who was not consulted in any way, and it was not that decision, that policy was not decided based on any consideration of the russian government. incidentally, i addthat those als not yeally lasted, but some ar in -- california. >> okay. to your tog, they were not cop culted? if the department decides additional missile defense systems were needed to be deployed for the protection of the united states, whether domestically or abroad, would the russian government be consulted or informed before that decision was made? >> well, first, i can't answer for the president. that would be a decision for the president to make. i suspect have to reinvolve around treaty obligations, and w
to the number originally planned during the bush administration with president obama. i have a question for you with the russian government consulted or informed that the united states was considering this decision before the decision was made and if so, when it that occur? >> well, the answer is not to my knowledge. it was not russian government was not consulted in any way. it was not decision that policy was not decided based on any consideration of the russian government. incidentally i would add that those gbi also not only really alaska but some are -- california. >> okay. to your knowledge they were not consulted. the department were to dpd that additional missile defense systems were needed, to be deployed domestically or abroad. would the russian government be informed before the decision was made? >> first, i can't answer for the president. will they include any of our nato allies as part of our discussion? >> again, senator, i don't know about those talks that would be in the per view of the secretary of state and the white house. i have not been consulted on on the possibility what
the metrics that this and the future administration will use to make sure that the border is truly secure. congress passed a law in 2007 requiring that the 100% of the e 0%operationally controlled." president obama and secretary napolitano abandoned that metric. the bill before us weakens that law by only requiring the southern border to be 90% effectively secured. in some sectors. only the so-lled high risk sectors. what about the other six? before green cards are allocated to those here illegally, the secretary only has to certify that the security plans and fencing's are "substantially deployed, operational, and completed." if the secretary does not do her job and a commission is created to provide recommendations, this is just a loophole that allows the secretary to neglect doing the job. another area of interest for me is employment verification measures. as i said before so many times, i was here in 1986 when we for the first time made it illegal for employers to hire undocumented individuals. i have been a champion for the e-verify system a staple in every workplace. it is an impor
, the bill does nothing to improve the metrics that this and the future administration will use to ensure that that the border is truly secure. congress passed a law in 2007 requiring that the 100% or the border be 100% quote-unquote operationally controlled. however, president obama and secretary napolitano abandoned that metrix. the bill before is weakenes current law by only requiring the southern border to be 90% effectively secured. in some sector, only the so-called high risk sectors. what about the other six sectors? then before green card are allocated to those here illegally, the secretary only has to certify that the security plans and fencings are quote-unquote substantially deployed. operational. and completed. if the secretary doesn't do her job, then a commission is created to provide recommendations. this is just a loophole that allows the secretary to neglect doing the job. another area of interest for me is the employment verification measure. as i said before so many times, i was here in 1986 when we for the first time made it illegal for employers to hire undocumented i
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26